User talk:TheNavigateur

Welcome
Hello, TheNavigateur, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your edits have not conformed to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and have been reverted. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

There is a page about the verifiability policy that explains the policy in greater detail, and another that offers tips on the proper ways of citing sources. If you are stuck and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Where to ask a question or ask me on. Again, welcome! CarbonX (talk) 01:37, 13 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

psychosis
Hi -- looking over your edits, it looks to me like you're trying to contribute in good faith. The problem is that some of your edits are clearly wrong, and you're editing so fast, and mixing up wrong things with possibly right things at such a high rate, that there's no workable way to handle your edits except by rejecting them en masse. How about coming to the talk page of the article and explaining what problems you see and what you are trying to accomplish? Regards, Looie496 (talk) 02:06, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looie496, it would be helpful good to know which edits are considered clearly wrong by giving edit examples on the talk page (clearly wrong is a subjective concept, depending on you POV ), as different from those you think are possibly right  Earlypsychosis (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have time to go through everything. Changing "People suffering from psychosis are said to be psychotic" to "People who have psychosis are said to be psychotic" is reasonable, for example. But the material added to the Hallucination section,

All human beings have the capability to imagine, that is, to have experiences originating from the mind, and not based on physical senses. The difference in psychosis is when somebody believes those experiences to be physically real. In such a case, the person reports the experience as sensory perception when it is not. A hallucination is sometimes defined as sensory perception in the absence of external stimuli. This definition is actually an oxymoron, because the perception cannot be sensory if their is no physical stimulus. This is why, in psychosis, hallucinations are always accompanied by the delusion that the perceived experience is physically real.

is just unsourced opinion, and even contradicts itself. There is a lot more like this, things added without sourcing, things removed without justification, etc. Looie496 (talk) 18:59, 13 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Looie496, I require your guidance. Much of the published information on psychosis is unproven because the causes of mental conditions is disputed between psychiatrists and "common sense"ists. Psychiatrists all start with a medical background and so tend to assume medico-biological causes. "Common sense"ists have a much simpler and completely understandable explanation for psychosis, and its treatment. Because of the prevalance of psychiatric literature due to professional time and money, it's difficult to incorporate the common sense explanation of psychosis into such pages, and remove the convoluted and non-joined-up explanation given by psychiatrists which absolutely nobody can or ever will understand, particularly psychiatrists themselves, who are unable to justify it fully either to themselves or to those who examine it. I have not made perfect statements but many of them disprove the referred psychiatric theories out of hand, particularly in the last edit. Your full guidance is required to achieve the goals I'm seeking. The simple truth. Many thanks, TheNavigateur (talk) 08:43, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I'm afraid that Wikipedia's policy -- and I believe that our articles would rapidly degenerate into chaos without it -- is that whether the published literature is right or wrong, it forms the basis for our articles. Claims that can't be derived from reliable published sources can't go into Wikipedia articles.  You're free to believe that the articles are wrong, if you want to, but there's no way for "common sense" to determine our articles unless it has been expressed in published form.  Regards, Looie496 (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * maybe you could use sources from the non medical and non health literature, such as historical reference, poetry and novels - to better reflect the more human and common understanding about psychosis. There is some scienitfic literature with a more normalising and less pathologising view of psychosis such as the British Psychological society linked here   Earlypsychosis (talk) 08:45, 22 July 2009 (UTC)