I met some Wiki people on the Internet, who told me about the Wild West Wiki. Robert B19 (talk) 01:42, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I should add that I was surprised at the hostility on the talk page. Robert B19 (talk) 01:53, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I get "new messages" but jayjg keeps deleting them...

Thanks for restoring the POV flag on the Circumcision page; I was considering it... Erikvcl (talk) 18:34, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And now it's gone :( Erikvcl (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually painful to read all their evasions and equivocations. Rush Limbaugh would be proud of them. Anonymous 190.90.162.67 (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Masculinities, Bodies and Identities: Male Circumcision among Jews and Muslims Conference

Event Date: Monday, March 5th, 2012

Time: 9:15 AM – 5:00 PM Location: 360 Shields Library (IGA Room) http://dhi.ucdavis.edu/?p=9652

http://dhi.ucdavis.edu/files/2012/03/Circumcision-Conference-Final.pdf

Anonymous 118.96.135.49 (talk) 04:44, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

without consensus is not appropriate. Cheers --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Circumcision, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted (undone) by an automated computer program called ClueBot NG.

• Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
• ClueBot NG makes very few mistakes, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been considered as unconstructive, please read about it, report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
• If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to place "{{helpme}}" on your talk page and someone will drop by to help.
• The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Circumcision was changed by Robert B19 (u) (t) ANN scored at 0.942288 on 2012-03-27T19:07:59+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot NG (talk) 19:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

rather a stacked deck, huh? (they even censor your talk page)Humanist 41.43.31.52 (talk) 18:50, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's worse than just pro-circ. Clear conflict of interest & ethical issues aren't recognized either. Pointing these out is called a "personal attack". I assume I'll get blocked (again) for writing this. As an anonymous user posted on my talk page: follow the money. Erikvcl (talk) 03:33, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

They edit war on my talk pagge! Robert B19 (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Male circumcision for prevention of heterosexual acquisition of HIV in men

Nandi Siegfried1,*, Martie Muller2, Jonathan J Deeks3, Jimmy Volmink4 Editorial Group: Cochrane HIV/AIDS Group

Published Online: 7 OCT 2009

Nandi Siegfried is a South African public health specialist and has been an active member of the Cochrane Collaboration since 1998. She served as co-director of the South African Cochrane Centre until March 2004. Nandi is the Deputy Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Review Group (CRG) and in partnership with the CRG established the successful African HIV/AIDS Mentoring Programme which aims to increase the number of HIV/AIDS reviews relevant to the African region. Presentations: Using reviews to inform health care decisions in poor countries: achievements and challenges

Martie Muller, Statistician and associated member of the SA Cochrane Centre, Medical Research Council, Cape Town and senior scientist at the Institute for Maritime Technology, Simon’s Town. Areas of interest: biostatistics, meta-analysis, diagnostic test accuracy, functional data analysis, spatio-temporal modeling.

Jimmy Volmink is the Head of the Department of Primary Care at the University of Cape Town, South Africa. He previously worked as the Director of Research and Analysis at the Global Health Council in Washington DC, USA and as the director of the South African Cochrane Centre located in Cape Town, South Africa. He serves on committees and advisory boards of various international organizations, including the Cochrane Collaboration and the World Health Organization. He is an editor of the Cochrane Infectious Diseases Group and has authored numerous journal articles and book chapters.

Jon Deeks is Professor of Biostatistics, Director of the Birmingham Clinical Trials Unit, and leads the Biostatistics, Evidence Synthesis and Test Evaluation Research Group in the School of Health and Population Sciences, where he also holds a position of Joint Research Lead.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/14651858.CD003362.pub2/full

In the case of circumcision trials it was not possible to blind personnel delivering the intervention or the participants. It is possible, however, to blind the assessors, and we therefore only rated the blinding of assessors as adequate, inadequate, or unclear. Participants and study personnel could not be blinded to the allocated interventions (circumcision or not). It is unclear whether this lack of blinding could influence the outcome (HIV status) via, for example, sexual risk behaviour or differentiated treatment by study personnel.

Attrition was high in all three trials. We rated the risk of bias due to incomplete outcome reporting as moderate in all three trials, as acceptable statistical survival analysis techniques were used to estimate HIV event distribution over time by accumulating for staggered enrolment and incomplete discrete follow-up.

Other potential threats to validity

All three trials were stopped early due to data-dependent processes (formal-stopping rules), and this may have introduced a risk of bias to the studies.

Feedback from Elizabeth Royle, 8 May 2009

Summary

In the What's New section the authors make the following statement: "Update of previous review of observational studies; now contains data from three large RCTs. Evidence conclusive and no further updates required."

I appreciate that this review may provide very clear results, but would question the validity of the assertion that no further updates are required. My understanding is that large effect sizes tended to ameliorate over time as more trials are performed and incorporated into meta-analyses. This may be due to an initial publication bias of trials with positive results followed by publication of those with less clear or negative results over time. At any rate, in this case, whether the effect size is reduced through the updating process or becomes even more significant, I do believe that the review authors have an obligation to perform updates on a regular basis in order to ensure that their review incorporates all the available data, and continues to provide the best evidential basis for future healthcare policies in this area. Fearless187.32.220.234 (talk) 00:17, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nandi Siegfried is a South African public health specialist and has been an active member of the Cochrane Collaboration since 1998. She served as co-director of the South African Cochrane Centre until March 2004. Nandi is the Deputy Co-ordinating Editor of the Cochrane HIV/AIDS Review Group (CRG) and in partnership with the CRG established the successful African HIV/AIDS Mentoring Programme which aims to increase the number of HIV/AIDS reviews relevant to the African region. Presentations: Using reviews to inform health care decisions in poor countries: achievements and challenges Fearless 190.200.132.100 (talk) 00:53, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert B19. You have new messages at Talk:Circumcision#Citing_Cochrane.
Message added 16:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hi Robert -- I left a reply for you to your concern about citing Cochrane: "the HIV benefit of circumcision has been subjected to no rigorous skepticism and experiemtnal testing." I see you haven't edited that Talk page in a few days so I just wanted to leave you this Talkback message to make sure you saw it. Zad68 16:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Zad, I'm working on a response. Robert B19 (talk) 17:08, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I opened a new thread there, "Do Van Howe & Storm's criticism of Cochrane discredit or cast enough doubt to rule out its use?"--let's discuss that. Zad68 19:42, 31 May 2012 (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).

Robert B19 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

a crock of horseshit to block me for winning the debate

Decline reason:

This does not address anything of value, let alone the reason for your block. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:46, 15 June 2012 (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.