User talk:NotAlright

Welcome!

Hello, NotAlright, 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: 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 Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Rich Farmbrough, 08:42, 4 June 2010 (UTC).
 * 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

Budder
I appreciate that you simply want to warn people of these effects, this is not the way to do it. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not a public health manual. There is precious little source material for the article anyway. If you can find someone working in public health who will commission a survey of budder users, or of ER physicians, and publish the results in a suitable forum, they could be cited. Rich Farmbrough, 09:07, 4 June 2010 (UTC).

Obviously you have no concern for public safetly at all, This is one of the only resources people can find on the substance and i've seen multiple peoples live's ruined because of the lack of information on the substance and the "its just weed" attitude.

This isnt the case  and i find it very strange that there was an ENTIRE SECTION that was marked as unverified yet it stayed up for a VERY LONG TIME, but as soon as i put in Warnings about the substance, they are removed....

Very suspicious, makes it seem like you have a stake in this issue, and YOUR ACTIONS will NO DOUBT cause 10+ hospitalizations!

I hope your proud of your ability to "clean up" wikipedia from any information that doesnt suit you.

you could maybe add a section detailing how rare and unstudied this drug is with a disclaimer that the information is only provided by other patients and their experiences, THIS SUBSTANCE IS ILLEAGAL regardless of its medical use, and THEREFORE NO ONE WANTS TO BECOME PART OF A CASE STUDY NOR REPORT THE REAL CAUSE OF THE SEIZURE TO THEIR DOCTOR.... And im sure you know that.

I actually care about other people and their well being, because otherwise PEOPLE COULD DIE because you are concerned about the uniformity and verifiability of the information I HAVE GATHERED from other patients whose lives have been ruined (seizures = Licence revoked) or been hospitalized with severe neural consequences. Maybe instead of taking my information down you could re structure it in a way that makes it obvious the information is not scientifically verified SO THAT MAYBE A DOCTOR WILL SEE THAT AND TAKE INTEREST..... but no.... you dont seem to be even remotely interested in notifying people of the risk they are taking when using this substance.

There were many warnings on the top of the page noting it was not verified etc, YET somehow MY INFORMATION is the only information that isnt cited THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED!....... VERY SUSPICIOUS AND VERY MORALLY IRRESPONSIBLE....

What do i have to do? Show someones medical records with a link to video them smoking budder and immediately convulsing and lying on the floor? Because you know as well as i do that budder is not a popular substance, not only that, Its an illegal one that has to be SMOKED! Do you know of any doctors that would jump on board the train of a case study that makes 50 patients smoke an illegal and potentially seizure inducing substance on a titanium skillet to record the effects?

You act as if all you want is to bring legitimate information to the people, but really you want to be right, and know your right. And because there havent been any neurologists willing to start a case study on this relatively rare and dangerous substance you say that merits the removal of all of my information......... Yet my information would be what Motivated the real study in the first place....... Way to police the world.......Next time i hear of this happening, i will make sure you get detailed pictures of the distant look in the persons eyes as their concious fades away into erratic disarray and their memory is distorted for life.... Then will you say the information has been verified?............Because i dont know that many people who describe the details of what type of hash they were smoking to their doctors, if they tell them anything.

June 2010
Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, as you did to Budder, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Rrburke (talk) 14:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. utcursch | talk 17:27, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Budder
If you can find a reliable source that details the health risks of Budder, please feel free to add that information to the article. If you can't, it can't be added. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a place to circulate health warnings, and it only includes material that has previously published in reliable sources. Unless you cite a reliable source, this material will be removed every time you add it. If you persist, your account will be blocked. -- Rrburke (talk) 18:00, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. If it's really that important, it will certainly have been written somewhere else that you can cite. Wikipedia isn't a community/public-notices forum and is not allowed to give medical or related advice. DMacks (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Budder. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.  Acroterion  (talk)  18:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * You've been amply warned - any further insertion of the material will result in a block for disruptive editing and edit-warring.   Acroterion  (talk)  18:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2011
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for abuse of editing privileges. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. DMacks (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)