User talk:Sparthorse

all the info i changed was true, i am a friend of alistair slowe — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rameshawkins123 (talk • contribs)

October 2011

Hello Sparthorse. You tagged "Adsasdsasada" for speedy deletion, but you did not notify the article's creator that it had been so tagged. There is strong consensus that the creators of articles tagged for speedy deletion should be warned and that the person placing the tag has that responsibility. All of the major speedy deletion templates contain a pre-formatted warning for this purpose—just copy and paste to the creator's talk page. Thank you.Template:Z19 — Abhishek ^Talk 08:27, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure sure if I am writing this in the right spot and I think you are the person who wants to delete the article James, son of alphaeus biblical criticism. I'm happy for it to be deleted. I'm a bit of a noob at wikipedia but I'm starting to get a few things. I have rewritten my article making sure that every statement has a biblical quote. Because the nature of the piece has changed I have placed the article back in James son of Alphaeus. If this still doesn't meet the requirments of wikipedia then I will require some extra specific assistence.

                                                                                 Bunofsteel.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunofsteel (talk • contribs) 06:40, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I am confused. Your criticism is that I am making an argument rather than stating a series of facts and therefore constituting original research. I have trouble understanding why this isn't original research.

Possible brother of Matthew

Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14 (fact from Matthew). The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9 (Interpretation as it is truer to say that Matthew tells the same story where the publican is Matthew son of Alphaeus), which has led some (who) to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers (sounds like original reserach). However, there is no Biblical account of the two being called brothers, even when they appear side by side in the synoptic list of the Twelve Apostles, next to the fraternal pairs of Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee (true but the biblical references should be here).

If I am making an arguement I would like to know what exactly my argument is. I know what I would like to argue but I haven't done it. I have highlighted the facts that have led me to my conclusions however, given that I am referencing Mark at every step and not taking Mark out of context. I don't see how I am producing original research. Bunofsteel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunofsteel (talk • contribs) 10:37, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So Sparthorse now I know that you are yanking my chain. I thought you were going to say that I using a synthetic argument. Do not combine material from "multiple sources" to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the "sources". A synthetic argument according to wikipedia requires more than one source. I have used the Gospel of Mark and which other source? I can't see how I can make a synthetic argument with only one source. The possible brother of Matthew is a synthetic argument because it uses both Matthew and Mark to make a conclusion that is not stated by both. This remains and yet mine is continually removed. Please explain this. Bunofsteel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunofsteel (talk • contribs) 19:33, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So how the "possible brother of Matthew" not a synthetic argument? Possible brother of Matthew

Another Alphaeus is also the name of the father of the publican Levi mentioned in Mark 2:14. The publican appears as Matthew in Matthew 9:9, which has led some to conclude that James and Matthew might have been brothers. However, there is no Biblical account of the two being called brothers, even when they appear side by side in the synoptic list of the Twelve Apostles, next to the fraternal pairs of Peter and Andrew and the sons of Zebedee.

It suggests that the publican is the same even because it quotes two different source to imply have Matthew and Levi are the same person when neither source says they are the same person. There is also no source symphasising that argument. Bunofsteel.

Talkback

Hello, Sparthorse. You have new messages at Abhishek191288's talk page.
Message added 08:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

— Abhishek ^Talk 08:32, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Kofi Annan, I do not see any personal analysis. It is a series of facts, so please let me know what are you talking about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.47.121 (talk) 19:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	Thank you very much for being so vigilant in reverting vandalism on my pages!! Thanks!! CTJF83 18:13, 18 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]