User talk:Ianmobsby

Welcome to the emerging church movement article, Ian! It looks as though you can be a real asset to its further development. One thing I would caution you about, however. From time to time we have editors contribute who are sticklers about self-promotion and advertising. They tend to act like the Wikipedia policies are all very cut and dried on these issues, and your contributions that involve your own name and blog would likely draw their stern disapproval. Personally I don't care as long as you are really prominent (though my more liberal opinion does not count as official policy). As far as I can see the biggest related problem for this article is that the standard for prominence on this particular list has been steadily dropping. When the list began, one practically had to be on a par with the likes of MacLaren and Kimball to make the list. Pretty soon someone may put my uncle Earl on the list. Anyway, good to have your input.Will3935 18:47, 4 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing...Other emergents are complaining about the spamming of Wikipedia by emergents that use the article to promote themselves. They think it makes EC look bad. So you may be making some of your fellow emergents upset with you. Check out http://www.jordoncooper.com/2005/10/spamming-wikipedia.html. Just thought I would give you a heads up.Will3935 14:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm an Idiot
Ian, Right now I feel like a conceited American jerk for deleting your name from the prominent figures list. Kerrydawkins put your name back on after you deleted it (class act). I have been getting paranoid about the exponential growth of the list because as it stands it really does violate Wikipedia policy. I think the list is useful and I fear it will be deleted altogether. It already was once. Anyway, Kerrydawkins was kind enough to set me straight about my American bias. I propose keeping the list at its current length but I agree with Kerrydawkins that we should delete some Americans from the list to make room for people such as yourself. For your convenience I'm pasting below a copy of my latest correspondence with Kerrydawkins:

Dear Will (From kerrydawkins)

Responding to your editing about spamming - it seems to me that there is an American bias to this - that Steve Collins, Ian Mobsby, Pete Rollins have all played a very big part in the Emerging Church which incidently existed before Emergent. Why can we not have these names - Ian Mobsby for example has been writing stuff since 1988 - Yes you give far too much focus and a very large group to the States. This is unjust, and does not reflect the real world of the emerging church.

Can we not take some of the American names off who are less key - and add some of the UK ones that are more key given a global perspective - and that not everything is dictated by an America bias


 * (from me)Absolutely! I think you would be very qualified for the job and I would respect your opinion. I confess I am an American and feel that what we do carries special weight. Forgive us for our arrogance.Will3935 00:39, 8 March 2007 (UTC)


 * One more thing (I'm afraid I can be something of a pest), but it seems to me that we need an articulate and informed fleshing out of the historical, global development of EC. I see the related movements section as something of a seedbed. There is material in there that can serve as a starter for someone wanting to place EC within its much broader context (Really, who can draw absolute borders for it anyway). I think people such as you and Ian could help us American egomaniacs with some data on global development of EC outside of the US. You wouldn't need to cover the subject in exhaustive detail (who could?) but you might at least get us started. You may have guessed that I don't identify with EC but I think it is an important movement that deserves better treatment in Wikipedia than it currently has. (I'm going to paste a copy of this on Ian's userpage as I beg his forgiveness for deleting him from the list -- we'll get him back on). One good/bad thing about Wikipedia is that the collaborative process makes its wheels turn a little slowly.Will3935 10:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for putting up with me on this.Will3935 10:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Will

Thanks for the info - I don't think you have an easy task invigilating wikipedia with something as new as the emerging church. And thanks for being happy for putting my name back - this is very much appreciated and feels a bit more just from a global perspective. BUT I see my name is not back yet - do I need to do anything? Kerry - thanks for your support - much appreciated.

Responding to your comment about including new sections to create a wider understanding about the emerging church - I would be happy to contribute to a sub section on emerging church theology, and something about the emerging Church coming out of sociocultural change

But I am not sure how you set up subsections?

Cheers Ian Mobsby

Subsections are pretty easy - either 2 or 3 ='s. Instead of using the sandbox I expirament using preview after starting an edit. I'm sure you will get the hang of it. Also, it helps to go into page edit and and see what kind of wiki markup others have used to obtain desired results. I'm not savvy enough to use all of the features in Wikipedia, but, given your blog experience I suspect you'll catch on pretty fast. If Kerry doesn't get your name on the list soon I will(not feeling well right now -- sorry)Will3935 02:59, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I put your name back on. Feel free to put other prominent figures on, but we really should also delete some of the less prominent ones to make room. I wasn't kidding about the list getting excessive. I trust your judgment more than mine regarding such edits since I am admittedly an ethnocentric American (though I really have told my wife many times I wish I had been born British [honestly -- not just kissing up]). Just one thing though, "invigilating?" That doesn't sound like good American English!Will3935 11:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)