User talk:Camustein

Welcome
Hello, Camustein, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Our intro page provides helpful information for new users—please check it out! If you need help, visit Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on this page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Happy editing! Joja lozzo  15:33, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Reliable sources for biopsychodynamics
I removed your recent additions to Anti-psychiatry‎ because they were not supported by reliable sources and without good secondary sources the content appears to be fringe concepts and creates problems with undue weight. Please find some reviews or other coverage of biopsychodynamics in reliable publications to support this material. Joja lozzo  15:40, 30 November 2011 (UTC).

I hope that my last edit and contributions are okay, if not go ahead and delete them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camustein (talk) 18:39, November 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * There may be reliable sources in the references of eoht.info articles that you can use, but I don't think eoht.info is reliable (see WP:SPS) since it's an open wiki. Joja  lozzo  22:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

How about this?

In 2011, a virtually un-known Newfoundland-born Canadian philosopher Joseph Richard Crant, using an isomorphic equation C=ea2, put forward that cognition, is emotional response to what he terms as being “absurd” notions. Absurd notions, he says is all manner of stimuli, and whether external or internal does not make a difference being that all events are singular and can therefore only be perceived as something absurd. Within this isomorphic equation, Crant offers that what is currently categorized mental illness is incorrect, and it must be addressed, emotional distress as described by Mount Isa Mines Ltd v Pusey (1970) 125 CLR 383. He reports that a cure for depression is not the answer because, the ability to become depressed is an autonomic response to physical and emotional exhaustion subsequent to the dictates and demands of societal living, agreeing with David Smail, where he argues that feelings and emotions are not features of the individual, but responses to his situation in society. Crant argues, without the natural ability to depress, humans would supernova on positive emotions, and that this would mean that all of humanity would realize schizophrenic episodes. In the understanding of Crant’s theory, psychiatry is still in the second stage of bio-psychodynamics, entanglement, and that it was not; thought out to perfection before accepted as a viable treatment for psychosis, which makes psychiatry a working hypothesis based mostly on assumption and conjecture. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camustein (talk • contribs) 01:31, December 1 2011 (UTC


 * Please review the policy on reliable sources. We need reliable secondary sources that review this work. "Reliable" means publications in peer-reviewed journals or books by experts in the field. Blogs, open-wikis, self-published web sites or self-published anything is not considered reliable. Joja  lozzo  02:49, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Talk page signature
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button or  located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. Joja lozzo  02:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

My theory
Note: Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2] This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Academic_use

My theory C=ea2 was nutured on Wikipedia and my own web pages (http://www.editnse.org/), (http://pohn.wetpaint.com/), use wikipedia all the time and this is a plus factor for Wikipedia, Also in the event C=ea2 becomes accepted and I reap finacial opportunity from it, I most certainly intend on contributing to Wikipedia with a donation. I appreciate Wikipedia and in turn, Wikipedia should out of fairness take a closer look into C=ea2 and to assist me to working it out and the promotion of it. I want to put forward the plea that Wikipedia see it fit and proper to allow http://www.editnse.org/,and http://pohn.wetpaint.com/ to be deemed realiable. After all I have conducted a multi-discipline research and study, spanning twenty-five years, and that when taking the time to look into it closer, you may find it to make considerable sense. You may even agree that C=ea2 meets certain requierments for a Wikipedia article.--Camustein (talk) 19:52, 4 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Your requests make sense for web sites that promote and nurture new ideas. However, Wikipedia has explicit, foundational policy against publishing editor's original research. Until the theory of c=ea2 is supported by reliable sources it will be considered not notable and original research. That doesn't mean editors here don't see value in the ideas but that Wikipedia is not the place to develop and promote them. Joja  lozzo  20:53, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Camustein/Causal theory of mind


Hello, Camustein. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Causal theory of mind".

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 nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the, , or  code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. CalOtter (talk) 17:42, 23 March 2019 (UTC)