User talk:67.244.220.242

August 2009
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of previously published material to our articles. Please cite a reliable source for all of your information. King Öomie 18:43, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.


 * "as I think it tastes exactly like sugar, and so do most people."

This is an unsourced statement, AND original research. Don't keep re-adding this. --King Öomie 18:57, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And by the way, they're talking about the taste of pure aspartame, not aspartame dissolved into diet drinks. If you taste sugar from a sugar packet, and then taste a packet of Nutrasweet, you'll immediately taste the difference. --King Öomie 18:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

there is no source as well for the part that says that it doesn't taste like sugar. I will keep changing it until it is removed for not being neutral
 * A certain amount of unsourced content is basically required for articles to not be a sea of links. I can attest that the information there is scientifically accurate, as Aspartame has a different chemical composition than table sugar, thus it tastes similar, but not identical.
 * Also, read up on WP:3RR. You're about to cross it. --King Öomie 19:04, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand how this works. If something you don't like is unsourced, either change it (with a source, not anecdotal evidence), or remove it. The onus doesn't fall to ME to prove that YOUR contribution is factually inaccurate. Saying "well, it wasn't sourced to begin with" isn't an excuse to completely reverse the meaning of a sentence without a source. --King Öomie 19:07, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. 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. If that proves 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. King Öomie 19:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you didn't make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Blocked
You have been blocked from editing for in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. ➲ REDVERS It sucks to be me 19:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Everybody trips up occasionally. I'm more than willing to help you become a productive, policy-conscious editor tomorrow, when this block expires. Though obviously, if you immediately revert Aspartame when your block expires, you'll be blocked again. --King Öomie 19:23, 25 August 2009 (UTC)