User talk:Theclevertwit

Please leave comment here.

HFCS edit
Hello. In this edit, you introduced a controversy when there is none among experts and organizations whose reviews were cited in the prior version. Giving light to Lustig's rants (he is not an epidemiologist and has little to no support scientifically) and citing rat studies from Utah are out of balance with the majority view supported by WP:MEDRS-quality sources. Lustig's opinion and lab studies do not stand as equal sources with the major reviews, the FDA, and medical organizations stating that HFCS or fructose do not cause harm if consumed as an ingredient in small amounts. I can see you put in some considerable work for that edit, but caution that a discussion of obesity and metabolic syndrome needs to be based on a high-degree of source quality discussed in WP:MEDASSESS. Following you here if you wish to respond. --Zefr (talk) 23:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)
 * On my Talk page, you said:


 * Your "fair and balanced" article contains no mention of studies both before and after 2014 that controvert a very industry-biased view of HFCS as being unharmful. The information added was also referenced with the very truthful and encyclopedic reference to the fact that there is controversy over the safety of HFCS. Two of the studies that you include were funded by Coca-Cola and the corn lobby. I did not remove them. Rather, I tried to include the "balance." The sources provided were valid, well documented, and factual in contravening findings. Such slanted writing, if you authored this page, or uphold the very biased point-of-view within, calls into question the veracity of Wikipedia.  It is not correct, and I will fully challenge the article with those higher up the chain if the edit is not reverted, and some sense of balance and accuracy is not brought back to the topic.
 * First, please sign your Talk page comments with the signature and time stamp icon. There is no WP:MEDRS evidence that HFCS is harmful. The CDC and FDA represent the synthesis of scientific studies and government agencies tasked to determine and monitor safety of food products such as HFCS, adequately discussed and referenced here. Your edit was made to the section on obesity and metabolic disorders, disease conditions that require by Wikipedia policy high-quality clinical trial evidence as reviews defined in the MEDRS guideline, here. Your sources were not MEDRS-compliant. To dispute my revert of your edit, you can 1) start a Talk discussion on the HFCS page; 2) raise the issue for debate and review by other medical editors at WT:MED; or 3) follow the steps of dispute resolution, WP:DISPUTE. You do not need to post on my Talk page, as we are engaged here.

Zefr: HFCS First, allow me to correct my comment. It was rather late when I wrote it, but Dr. Robert Lustig is a pediatric endocrinologist and a renowned expert in childhood obesity, even per Wikipedia. By calling them "rants" you are clearly demonstrating a bias.

I am taking note of that as I continue my appeal of your unfortunate choices in editing a subject to comport to your own point of view. There is disagreement among experts, other than those bought and paid for by the corn and/or sugar lobbies. The studies that you cite cherry-pick the data.

You neglect to discuss the Hopkins/Illinois study in your response above. Your critique of the "rat" study does not negate its value to the point that there are continuing studies of HFCS past the point of those which you have deified into a communal answer of "experts." The American Medical Association did not condone its use. They cited "insufficient evidence" back in 2008 when they reviewed it.

Subsequently I have also pulled up another study in the National Institutes of Health system " Effects of High-Fructose Diets on Central Appetite Signaling and Cognitive Function" which suggests that HFCS impacts appetite control and cognitive function:

"Apart from its metabolic consequences, a growing body of literature suggests that free fructose can also affect neuronal systems. High-fructose intake may on the one hand affect central appetite regulation by altering specific components of the endocannabinoid system. On the other hand, it appears to impact on cognitive function by affecting phosphorylation levels of insulin receptor, synapsin 1, and synaptophysin. The present report reviews the recent evidence showing a negative effect of free fructose consumption on central appetite control, as well as cognitive function."

Is this to be discounted as well?
 * Yes. Note the words, "suggests", "may", and "appears to". The authors are conjecturing about an in vivo effect which cannot be measured or defined accurately. To include such speculation in an encyclopedia article would be WP:SYNTH; please read this advisory. --Zefr (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Zefr: No. Science does not always phrase in absolutes. Note that if you included only science that was absolute, you would have very little science. Presenting evidence of ongoing research is both allowed and should be noted. There are MYRIAD entries in Wikipedia that discuss new research. The findings of the studies were important milestones in understanding the effects of HFCS on the body. By your reckoning, the AMA notation should go too. Citing a lack of evidence is not an endorsement. It did, however, foster more research. The research at Princeton and Johns Hopkins are VALID. The studies need to be included. Respectfully, if you do not reverse your edit, I will ask for a third-party ruling on the issue as you have created an information bubble around the subject that skews to your absolutist and rather limited view of the subject matter. Discounting other valid research by credible people is encouraging ignorance and poor information. You continue to display bias. Theclevertwit (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Almost a decade later more evidence continues to accumulate from studies not funded by Coca-Cola, the corn growers and sugar lobbying groups and other sponsors of junk science. Why are the studies cited junk science? They mostly engaged in exercises in the chemical weeds without looking at the forest. Sugar consumption in the United States soared when HFCS was introduced in the 1970s because it was, and still is, used as a fat substitute. Manufacturers used to use cheap fats to make food taste better, including trans-fats, which are being legally phased out, unless that lobby persuaded the current administration to do otherwise. The huge spike in HFCS consumption took daily sugar intakes up more than 300% by the end of the 1980s. Today it's just south of 600%. Sucrose at such levels would be equally bad, but HFCS' cheap production cost allows for its abuse. Because it can be used excessively, HFCS' monosaccharides present a greater danger to public health because they are being consumed with large quantities in other foods already available.

Even chemically, though, the "rat" study that you mock further notes performance differences though between rats exposed to table sucrose and hfcs. It's no less valid than the studies presented. I will be in contact with its authors to share your comments. There is a growing concern that fructose presents health issues beyond toxicity. To deny that researchers are looking at this by failing to acknowledge the research is bad science. In addition there is this Princeton study, which I did not put in:

'''“Some people have claimed that high-fructose corn syrup is no different than other sweeteners when it comes to weight gain and obesity, but our results make it clear that this just isn’t true, at least under the conditions of our tests,” said psychology professor Bart Hoebel, who specializes in the neuroscience of appetite, weight and sugar addiction. “When rats are drinking high-fructose corn syrup at levels well below those in soda pop, they’re becoming obese -- every single one, across the board. Even when rats are fed a high-fat diet, you don’t see this; they don’t all gain extra weight.”'''

Would it be appropriate to discount Princeton too?
 * Yes. More conjecture based on early-stage, primary research. See WP:MEDREV. --Zefr (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Zefr: No. See above. You continue to display bias. Theclevertwit (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC).Theclevertwit (talk) 16:47, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

'''Wikipedia is supposed to identify where there is disagreement of opinion of experts, note the controversy, and cite relevant, real studies by credible experts in multiple fields who have alternative data that may suggest a lack of uniformity of opinion on a subject. I was trying to present that in a proper, encyclopedic manner.'''

As an editor, under the rules of this organization, you cannot "steer" information to affirm one point of view. You have demonstrated a clear bias, and, by refusing to include valid scientific research AND the note that the various scientific and medical experts DO NOT agree, are painting a distorted portrait of HFCS' health efficacy. I respectfully request, again, that you reverse your edit, and that you acknowledge the bias, and work to present information in the spirit which Wikipedia operates or please resign from your position as a editor if you cannot. I will also place this on your TALK page because it clearly is an issue of how you edit, not of the subject matter at hand, and the record relative to your own editorial history, not the science discussed, is at issue. Theclevertwit
 * Once again, use the pencil icon at the top of the edit box to sign and timestamp your Talk page comments. You are expending considerable effort on a futile argument. Wikipedia is not written and edited by one person, so your wish to include primary studies, including Lustig's opinions and rat research, would have to gain consensus from other editors. This won't happen because your sources do not comply with WP:MEDRS for high-quality evidence of HFCS being unsafe or causing obesity, particularly as explained in WP:MEDREV. In a previous remark to you, I suggested three ways to get other editors involved in your discussion. The present version of the article stands as it is because there is WP:CON support for it. Note from the HFCS article and talk page histories that numerous editors have worked on this article over the past years. I will not be responding further to your Talk discussion unless it concerns valid ways of improving the article. --Zefr (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

More on HFCS
On my Talk page, you said:
 * "Wikipedia regularly includes controversies, disagreements about the fundamental science of a wide number of subjects, and documentation of studies that are evolving IF THEY ARE SO IDENTIFIED. You are right in that Wikipedia has many editors. You cannot dictate the contents of a page, and the "science" that you stand upon is no more certain than the other studies. You cherry-picked research to espouse a point of view, which is against the terms of service here. I will ask for someone else to review your work. It is not appropriate. Do you work for the corn industry? It would seem as if you do."

Differing points of view are appropriate to include when the sources are equally strong, a situation not fulfilled by the literature on HFCS. In the discussion on HFCS above, the sources you have offered are not strong, and are not supported by Wikipedia's guideline for source strength on medical and nutrition topics, WP:MEDRS. Neither is this most recent edit which was justifiably reverted because of its preliminary nature. You don't need to imply conflict of interest due to commercial interests, since they do not exist. I defend and use strong MEDRS sources on other topics whatever their results may say. --Zefr (talk) 14:37, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

They were strong. Leading epidemiologist, and other credible sources who have researched its effects for decades. It was very clear that you evidence a bias towards the industry’s stand. Enforcing that does not allow for reasonable reference of more than your particular point-of-view, which, by the by, one might ask about the bona fides that you bring to such a discussion, and/or why you evince a bias that tries to minimize credible alternative voices on the subject matter. Theclevertwit (talk) 20:21, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Berkshire pig, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Meiji ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Berkshire_pig check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Berkshire_pig?client=notify fix with Dab solver]). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Bobby Koelble
Hello Theclevertwit,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Bobby Koelble for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly indicate why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=&action=edit&section=new&preload=Template:Hangon_preload&preloadtitle=This+page+should+not+be+speedy+deleted+because...+ contest this deletion], but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Meatsgains (talk) 02:08, 19 December 2019 (UTC)


 * Hopefully you didn't delete it. Koeble was a member of Death, the band that spawned Death Metal. The musical movement both existed, and continues to exist. How y'all scratch your relevance standards is often quite a mystery. You have far more obscure musicians' careers documented. Theclevertwit (talk) 21:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

He was one of the seminal members of “Death” a creator of the Death Metal movement that has lasted decades. That should qualify him. Undelete, please. Theclevertwit (talk) 20:18, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of DJNO Records


The article DJNO Records has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Fails WP;NORG. No significant coverage, article is promotional in nature."

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Rogermx (talk) 23:11, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Found it while going through the history of Jazz and soul records. In no way is it promotional as the company does not exist any further. Theclevertwit (talk) 22:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)