User talk:TWYLIVE

Welcome!
  Hello, TWYLIVE!  Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

  Getting Started

Tutorial Learn everything you need to know to get started. Introduction to contributing • Editing

• Referencing

• Images

• Tables

• Policies and guidelines

• Talk pages

• Navigating

• Manual of Style

The Teahouse Ask questions and get help from experienced editors.

The Task Center Learn what Wikipedians do and discover how to help.

Tips 
 * Don't be afraid to edit! Just find something that can be improved and make it better. Other editors will help fix any mistakes you make.
 * It's normal to feel a little overwhelmed, but don't worry if you don't understand everything at first—it's fine to edit using common sense.
 * If an edit you make is reverted, you can discuss the issue at the article's talk page. Sign your messages with four tildes ( ~ ), be civil, and don't restore the edit unless there is consensus.
 * When adding new content to an article, always include a citation to a reliable source.
 * If you wish to edit about a subject with which you are affiliated, read our conflict of interest guide and disclose your connection.
 * Have fun! Your presence in the Wikipedia community is welcome.

Happy editing! Cheers,  Comr Melody Idoghor  (talk)  22:36, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Age regression in psychology (May 22)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by The Most Comfortable Chair was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Age regression in psychology and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Age regression in psychology, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "Db-g7" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
 * If you do not make any further changes to your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
 * If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Age_regression_in_psychology Articles for creation help desk], on the [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Most_Comfortable_Chair&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_decline/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Draft:Age_regression_in_psychology reviewer's talk page] or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

— The Most Comfortable Chair 14:09, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. We are biased.
Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia, once wrote:

Wikipedia's policies ... are exactly spot-on and correct. If you can get your work published in respectable scientific journals – that is to say, if you can produce evidence through replicable scientific experiments, then Wikipedia will cover it appropriately.

What we won't do is pretend that the work of lunatic charlatans is the equivalent of "true scientific discourse". It isn't.

So yes, we are biased.


 * We are biased towards science, and biased against pseudoscience.
 * We are biased towards astronomy, and biased against astrology.
 * We are biased towards chemistry, and biased against alchemy.
 * We are biased towards mathematics, and biased against numerology.
 * We are biased towards medicine, and biased against homeopathy.
 * We are biased towards venipuncture, and biased against acupuncture.
 * We are biased towards solar energy, and biased against esoteric energy.
 * We are biased towards actual conspiracies and biased against conspiracy theories.
 * We are biased towards cargo planes, and biased against cargo cults.
 * We are biased towards vaccination, and biased against vaccine hesitancy.
 * We are biased towards magnetic resonance imaging, and biased against magnetic therapy.
 * We are biased towards crops, and biased against crop circles.
 * We are biased towards laundry detergent, and biased against laundry balls.
 * We are biased towards augmentative and alternative communication, and biased against facilitated communication.
 * We are biased towards water treatment, and biased against magnetic water treatment.
 * We are biased towards mercury in saturated calomel electrodes, and biased against mercury in quack medicines.
 * We are biased towards blood transfusions, and biased against blood letting.
 * We are biased towards electromagnetic fields, and biased against microlepton fields.
 * We are biased towards evolution and an old Earth, and biased against young Earth creationism.
 * We are biased towards holocaust studies, and biased against holocaust denial.
 * We are biased towards an (approximately) spherical earth, and biased against a flat earth.
 * We are biased towards the sociology of race, and biased against scientific racism.
 * We are biased towards the scientific consensus on climate change, and biased against global warming conspiracy theories.
 * We are biased towards the existence of Jesus and biased against the existence of Santa Claus.
 * We are biased towards geology, and biased against flood geology.
 * We are biased towards medical treatments that have been proven to be effective in double-blind clinical trials, and biased against medical treatments that are based upon preying on the gullible.
 * We are biased towards astronauts and cosmonauts, and biased against ancient astronauts.
 * We are biased towards psychology, and biased against phrenology.
 * We are biased towards Mendelism, and biased against Lysenkoism.

And we are not going to change. tgeorgescu (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Is this where you get off? I can imagine people have done speedruns to see how fast they could get you to leave that god-awful copypasta on their talk page
 * Anyway, i know how powerless and ridiculous you would like us anthroposophists to look, but reacting like this in under 2 minutes is not a good look for you either. Think about it. Actually think about it instead of writing a pseudointellectual slightly condescending reply and actually dwell on the thought that you removing claims that an article is not neutral within 1 minute is not very good for wikipedia, for the writer, and for you! My point was simple, saying that anthroposophy is based on white supremacist pseudoscience is an opinion and it should be made clear that other people do not share that opinion, or, making the article neutral is a good thing to do.
 * But like actually think about that. If you are saying that your opinion is correct and triumphs over my opinion, even if that is the opinion of wikipedia as a whole, then that means that the notion of "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" is then completely false and some of the core bits of wikipedia mean nothing.
 * I want you to consider the fact that saying your opinion is truer than mine means one of two things, either your opinion is fact and therefore not an opinion, OR, you misunderstand your opinion as fact and act accordingly.
 * I will not be reading whatever you reply to this with, as i will be spending my time writing blog posts, social media posts, on the street, networking, and generally bringing awareness in a meaningful way to something that you wish could be suppressed forever.
 * Anyways, i hope that inspired some thoughts within you, and i hope i never read anything you write again. TWYLIVE (talk) 23:20, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Age regression in psychology
Hello, TWYLIVE. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Age regression in psychology, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again&#32;or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 03:02, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Age regression in psychology


Hello, TWYLIVE. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Age regression in psychology".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 02:53, 5 January 2023 (UTC)