User talk:68.44.56.88

Welcome!
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, such as the one you made to Born again. I hope you like the place and decide to stay.

Here are some links to pages you may find useful:
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but if you wish to acquire additional privileges, you can simply  [ create a named account] . It's free, requires no personal information, and lets you:
 * Create new pages and rename pages
 * Edit semi-protected pages
 * Upload images
 * Have your own watchlist, which shows when articles you are interested in have changed

If you edit without using a named account, your IP address (68.44.56.88) is used to identify you instead.

I hope that you, as a new Wikipedian, decide to continue contributing to our project: an encyclopedia of human knowledge that anyone can edit. If you need help, check out Questions, or you can  to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. We also have an intuitive guide on editing if you're interested. By the way, please make sure to sign and date your talk page comments with four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).

Happy editing! Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

March 2018
Hello, I'm NottNott. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Born again, but you didn't provide a source. I’ve removed it for now, but if you’d like to include a citation to a reliable source and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. - Nott Nott  19:37, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Per APA standards, citing the bible is not necessary.

Per WP:BURDEN (Wikipedia standards), the burden of proof for contentious material rests with the editor making the edit. The article is well-sourced as it is - you may want to see WP:CITINGSOURCES on how to add sources to an article. - Nott Nott  19:45, 8 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Born again, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiences—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
 * You're interpreting the content based on your theology. First, it's 1 Peter 1:22-23:, and second, your interpretation that scripture "clearly states [that] to be born again is in reference to your spirit" is not supported in any of the passages you are supplying. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Ti is a section called "interpretations" is it not? Furthermore, this is something a child can understand. If you can't see it, then maybe you have a veil like the LORD said. Regardless, that is your problem, and it doesn't give you the right to troll a topic because you think you are right, you devil. You obviously are lost on the voice of the Shepard. ANY saved person will tell you that to born again is to saved. Let alone the verse I posted that you obviously are having trouble understanding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.56.88 (talk) 22:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * And your interpretation is not supported by a reliable source. Stay off that page unless you can find one. Walter Görlitz (talk) 22:45, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

According to whom? YOU? One problem, that is YOUR opinion. If you do not agree with the sources, lump it. Because its going back. Again and again if need be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.56.88 (talk) 23:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It's plain to see that you are not supplying a reliable source when you add the interpretation of scripture> That's not my opinion. The sources are not clear. It seems you're intransigent on this and so I will allow an admin to address the situation going forward. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:09, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just noticed the religious language in the earlier comment about having a veil and having trouble understanding. That's clearly not the case. Please allow me to break this down more clearly for you.
 * Peter 1:22-23 does not exit. I assume you mean 1 Peter 1:22-23: http://biblehub.com/interlinear/1_peter/1-23.htm Not sure what "been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and enduring word of God" (NASB) has to do with your claim that "bible clearly states" "be born again is in reference to your spirit". That passage states it is the "λόγου ζῶντος Θεοῦ", which in other contexts refers to Jesus (John 1:1).
 * Colossians 2:13 http://biblehub.com/interlinear/colossians/2-13.htm "When you were dead in your transgressions and the uncircumcision of your flesh, He made you alive together with Him" (NASB). YOU are not taking into consideration the greater narrative of the Kingdom of God. We were dead but are alive through Christ, but that life does not being in the future, it begins now and will continue on the new Earth.
 * John 3:6-7 http://biblehub.com/interlinear/john/3-6.htm is much more convincing, but a reliable source is required. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:40, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

You are using an NASB to try to preach to me? That proves my point. You have been given, and currently read, a false gospel. No wonder the devil has you right where he wants you. No one but a devil would hinder the point of the passage. And that is to be saved. By doing this, you yourself make yourself an enemy of God. Good luck on the last day, reprobate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.56.88 (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I was actually using the original Greek and used an English translation since I assumed you couldn't read Koine. My apologies for making an erroneous assumption. I debated whether the translated version should be the authorized version, NASB, ESV or another translation. If you'd like to stick with Koine, let's do it. If you'd rather use King James, well, we can use that translation, but only if you admit it has to include the Apocrypha, as was the case with the original pressings prior to the Oxford changes. If you have another preference, feel free to discuss that. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I just noticed that you think I was preaching to you. I wasn't. I was discussing the academic subject. I think I understand your approach more clearly now: you think Wikipedia is a tool for evangelism or proselytization. It's not, but that's what you're trying to do, preach to readers through that article. While preaching doesn't require sources (which is a major problem with preaching) Wikipedia does. You can't add opinion, you need a recognized expert to agree with the words you add. Then, and only then, should it be added. And to clarify, you should probably find out what recognized experts say and write about that rather than try to proof-text your opinions.
 * And before you predict my future, read Matthew 7:5. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:26, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I know your future, devil. It is to be with your father in the pit.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be repeatedly reverting or undoing other editors' contributions at Born again. Although this may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is known as "edit warring" and is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, as it often creates animosity between editors. Instead of reverting, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page. If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing Wikipedia. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, and violating the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:07, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users, as you did on User talk:NottNott, potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:07, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edits, consider creating an account for yourself or logging in with an existing account so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.

Oh no! I will be blocked from editing on the biggest fake news website on the internet! LOL...those bans are only as good as the IP addresses attached to them, you cucks.