User talk:Elflordtim

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hey there people! I was recently asked in class to go onto here and change the meaning of the word truth. After one of my classmates did it, wikipedia changed the definition back and semi-locked the page. I guess they just couldn't handle the TRUTH.

UPDATE: Hahaha!!! They call changing their definition of 'truth' unconstructive. Well, I'll tell ya what. Mine is a much better definition than yours, and a lot shorter. And it makes sense. How the heck can you make a definition that says there is no real definition?? Um... So I gave you the only real definition that makes sense, and they reprimand me for it. Well, sorry for making more sense than you guys.

First of all, Wikipedia is not a dictionary. Second, your "definition" makes no sense. "God is truth" is simply circular reasoning and far more flawed than admitting that a concept is difficult and potentially contentious to define. Sort of like: "the Bible is God's word because it says in the Bible that it is God's word". The very definition of circular reasoning. I get the sense that you are young and simple, so I will spare you the lecture. But do you really think that God, the omnipotent and omniscient creator of the universe really needs you to do his dirty work for him by vandalizing Wikipedia? Please stop. You're getting nowhere. If you want to make the world a better place, use the gifts that your God gave you and do something constructive. Thank you. — DIEGO ^talk 05:17, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Though you did get a definition from the dictionary. ^^ Also, circular reasoning is trying to prove something with something else that needs that one thing to prove itself correct. I wasn't using anything to prove anything, because I have no need to prove it considering it's already correct. And, my definition makes a whole lot more sense then "there is no definition".

Saying that "God is truth" is flawed (and circular) reasoning. Saying that God defines truth is an assertion that God's existence (and omnipotence) is true. Therefore "truth" as a construct requires the presence of God, which in turn needs to be "true" in order for the statement to be correct. One depends on the other. Circular. Anyway, please stop vandalizing Wikipedia. Your stated intent here is solely to cause disruption which is considered trolling. You will be blocked from further editing if you continue to vandalize or revert articles in an attempt to compromise their neutrality. Whether you like the article on truth or not is irrelevant. Wikipedia maintains a strict neutrality policy which requires that any claims must be verifiable and reference a reliable source. Your additions constitute original research that has no place in an encyclopedia. I recognize that you feel strongly about the subject, but your comments would be more appropriate for forums other than an encyclopedia. If you wish to debate your version of truth, there are plenty of places for that.

Also please read the Wikipedia policy on sockpuppets and meatpuppets. You have essentially admitted on this talk page to being a meatpuppet and you can be blocked for this behavior (don't bother erasing it now, it is in the page history and will be reverted). Also, please do not alter comments other people have made on your talkpage in order to mischaracterize them, as you did below. Whether or not you are "right" is irrelevant. Thank you. — DIEGO ^talk 18:12, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Recent Edit to Truth

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. — DIEGO ^talk 17:43, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked RuneWiki⁷⁷⁷ 20:06, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Now!

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you will be blocked — DIEGO ^talk 05:20, 4 October 2007 (UTC)