User talk:Therewillbefact
Welcome!
Hello, Therewillbefact, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! Yunshui 雲水 08:43, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
Barnstar
[edit]
|
The Original Barnstar | |
| This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation. |
Thanks for your thoughtful work! 50.116.32.33 (talk) 20:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Not sure which work you're referring to in particular (I've edited a number of entries), but I appreciate your compliment! 
Therewillbefact (talk) 21:42, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
Banned means banned
[edit]I'd like to ask you to at least provide a brief explanation when you decide to completely omit the comments left on my talk page by other editors. I'd appreciate it. Best, Therewillbefact (talk) 20:46, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- The user in question, Joe Circus, is banned. Despite this, he continues to edit with sockpuppets and IPs, a total of over 60 now (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Joe Circus). He is unwelcome on Wikipedia, and not allowed to edit here. I reverted all his edits, per Wikipedia:BAN#Evasion and enforcement. Jayjg (talk) 21:10, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate the explanation. That's all I was looking for.
Therewillbefact (talk) 21:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
- Happy to be of assistance. Jayjg (talk) 06:09, 26 February 2012 (UTC)
- I appreciate the explanation. That's all I was looking for.
- To the circumcision boss said that "banned is banned." Son, you might want to take an Introduction to Western Civilization course at your local community college. You're so unfamiliar with the Enlightenment that you don't realize that "banned" is a badge of honor in the history of human progress. 82.128.204.29 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Please keep things civil, 82.128.204.29. Therewillbefact (talk) 02:05, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- To the circumcision boss said that "banned is banned." Son, you might want to take an Introduction to Western Civilization course at your local community college. You're so unfamiliar with the Enlightenment that you don't realize that "banned" is a badge of honor in the history of human progress. 82.128.204.29 (talk) 01:48, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
- Anonymous will work with you for human freedom.
- And how do you propose you do that? To be honest, I'm starting to think you are a decoy being used by another editor to distract me. None of these comments have really been of benefit to anyone. Therewillbefact (talk) 01:05, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
Special Request by Therewillbefact
[edit]If any editors do not particularly like the editing practices of certain users on this Wikipedia, please do not make a bad-faith comment about it on my talk page. This accomplishes nothing. Please focus your efforts on providing valuable input in the talk pages of the entries you are not happy with. Thanks, Therewillbefact (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2012 (UTC)
Nandi Siegfried is a South African Cochrane Collaboration Using reviews to inform health care decisions in poor countries
[edit]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 ........................
Nandi Siegfried is a South African Cochrane Collaboration Using reviews to inform health care decisions in poor countries
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.
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. Fearless 190.200.132.100 (talk) 00:52, 28 May 2012 (UTC)