User talk:Jwiley80


 * Be Bold!
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * Avoiding common mistakes
 * Wikiquette: Play nicely with others
 * Please do not bite the newcomers
 * New contributors' help page
 * Tell us about you

You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing the following, which Wikipedia software automatically converts to your username and the date:  &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;

Messages
Thanks for your kind tone. I responded at some length in two separate entries on the EC discussion page. God Bless!Will3935 01:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Jwiley, I should be able to get to the articles sometime this week. I have a big project I am working on right now and want to get the first part of it done very soon. The timing is a little poor but I am very interested in EC and related topics so I will get to it.Will3935 05:37, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some comments on the discussion page for "parachurch organization." It seems to me that it is probably best to drop any reference to the historical origin and development of parachurch activity until someone is ready to step up to the plate with a very extensive entry on this. Anyway, I explain a little more in detail on the discussion page.Will3935 07:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I am suggesting that Missional, Missional living and Missional church be merged together into a new article: Missionality - which is in keeping with wikipedia guidelines for mergers.DaveDV 16:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think Dave means well but here is a copy of my comments to him:


 * Wow! "missionality." Did you coin that or have others already used it? I would not be shocked if they have since creation of jargon that sounds like gibberish is a postmodern craze that has unfortunately caught on in the emerging church movement that has coopted "missional." Many editors seem to take a postmodern approach to the tone and style of an encyclopedia, which is a modern genre. I oppose such a merger until "missionality" becomes a commonly used term. Encyclopedias should reflect usage not create it.


 * Good try by him though.Will3935 19:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello, would you be interested in combining your interest in wikis and politics? Dpeterjohnson09 (talk) 06:31, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

move
I have moved A praxis, post-evangelical, and rhetoric focused Emerging Church Movement to Emerging Church Movement/sandbox. -- RHaworth 19:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Welcome to the very lively discussion of the emerging church movement article! Do contribute. I hope you will consider talking to us patiently, one issue or statement at a time on the discussion page. I doubt many editors will "play" in your sandbox. For some reason, we seem to be short on contributors at the moment anyway. I look forward to lively discussion with you on our page.Loudguy 01:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Ad Hominems
Uh Oh! Sounds like I made you quite angry. I am in favor of reasonable discourse. All I am trying to do is discuss things intelligently. I pasted my comments to Dave on your userpage as a courtesy and convenience to you since he has talked to you about his proposal. I meant no offense and I am unsure why you were so offended by such a thing. I will be careful not to do this again in the future since it apparently angers you. The rest of your post on my userpage is a typical postmodernist ad hominem. I know it is considered mean to disagree with postmodern idealogy (it's the only offense in postmodernism) but I reserve the right to think. True reasonable discourse has proven to be something of a boogie man on all of the emergent-related entries. If you have a specific content, grammar, or style point to discuss I will happily engage them. Your comment about winning and losing typifies the postmodern approach which has no place in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not about winning and losing, it is about accuracy (a decidedly modern concept) and quality. One emergent editor (Gold Dragon, who is no longer working on the emerging church article) and I used to haggle about terminology and content like men and eventually come to compromises. In answer to your question about being reasonable, my answer is "Yes please." Let's quit whining and engage in manly, reasonable discourse. It is not mean-spirited or "flaming" (I am heterosexual, by the way) to speak forthrightly. On the other hand, attempts to diffuse criticism by speaking out of both sides of the mouth as Leonard Sweet recommends are not fitting in an encyclopedia. Nor are attempts to censor facts about the movement, its jargon, or its critics. If I am considered mean for knowing information, disagreeing with others, or not going away, so be it. I would suggest we be friends Jwiley. Gold Dragon and I did it even though we disagreed on content (his contributions were wonderful exceptions to the poor grammar and style the emerging church article has been plagued with). I want to be friends, but don't expect me to cut you any slack if you offer poorly constructed or inaccurate edits. Will3935 23:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Scot's Article
I finally read the article you wanted me to. Unfortunately a verse by verse commentary on it would be too time consuming for both of us. I'll try to get to the bottom line. Ask yourself what the emerging church movement would be without its postmodern epistemology. It would only be a change in methodology, not a radical new movement. If you do follow through with the study of Church history you will see that the Church has frequently changed methodology without that change being considered a radical new "movement." There are exceptions, such as the modern missionary "movement" but these are indeed exceptions. We do not speak of the televangelist "movement" or the printed Bible movement, for example. I have read a large number of emergent works and I continually find postmodern epistemology at the heart of the discussion. It is not usually labelled as "postmodern epistemology" but simple analysis reveals that is what is being discussed.I can take time to document this for you if you like. Simply put, the emerging church movement is anti-foundationalist. Scot knows this.

There is nothing very controversial about changes in methodology. Most Evangelicals are not all that stodgy about non-essentials and Scot knows this too. As he should also know, the caricature of Evangelicalism frequently portrayed in EC circles is in error. The only reason for this mischaracterization of Evangelicals is to set up the standard postmodern strategy which, sadly, is all too common in EC. The caricature allows them to present a straw man and their teachings (which may be cosmetically altared for the moment) as the only alternative. This straw man / false antithesis strategy is a one-two punch fallacy that has knocked out many sincere seekers.

I think the suspicion I communicated to you earlier may just be right. Scot sees EC coming under fire from the leading voices in Evangelicalism such as Millard Erickson and D. A. Carson (they don't come any more prominent than that) and he wants to defend himself (since he has befriended the movement). To do so he must make a desparate attempt to defend a momentarily and cosmetically altered EC while criticizing a straw man he calls Evangelicalism. Typical stuff really and the strategy has worked on many sincere people.

I reccomend you at least acquaint yourself with the more articulate criticisms of the movement. I firmly believe no one is qualified to even weigh in on a discussion of this issue until they have thoroughly read the best works on both sides. This I have done at length. I suspect you have not read Carson, Smith, Erickson, Moreland, Groothius etc. on this issue. I would be delighted to discover I am wrong. You will find a helpful list of critical books and articles on the Wikipedia article. Some of the articles are much better than others. I have tried to delete the ones of poorer quality, but you may have legitimate criticisms of some of the critical articles. Give these works a spin. They wont bite. In the past I've had trouble getting emergents to read and consider the criticisms these scholars have offered. They usually just say it's mean for them to criticize EC. I hope you will be an exception. I look forward to working with you in the future (seriously, just don't be surprised if you find me to be a stickler for good writing and good scholarship) May God bless His Church.Will3935 13:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism
You asked me to read the article on panocracy and I did so. I found a very simiar article at another site that was not linked to the Wikipedia article. This author was given no credit on the Wikipedia article nor was Wikipedia given credit on his or her article. Someone has plagiarized. Please see the fuller note, (which includes the address of the other article)I left for you on the panocracy talk page. Those who have no experience evaluating and grading the writing of others are usually quite surprised to discover what academics consider plagiarism. Some college students are disciplined for this practice without knowing they have committed an offense.

I would also note here that plagiarism was involved in your noticeable borrowing from Scot's article in your proposed edits of the emerging church movement without giving him credit for his work which you used. I have not reported these things because it seems to me that you sincerely did not understand what you were doing violated policy. I trust you will do the right thing. I'm not going to hassle you about it. God Bless!Will3935 07:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry Jwiley!! I didn't realize the site I was referring to was a mirror site of Wikipedia that did, in fact, give Wikipedia credit! Forgive me.Will3935 17:55, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the inquiry about me. I just thought the user page was pretentious and I am trying to repent of my pompous ways.Will3935 11:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Avon Products
Hello Jwiley80, you made Avon a MLM-company by category. I don't think that is so, they just do direct marketing. Hope you all right with that. Regards, --Wolli-j 13:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Collectivist Anarchism
Hi Jwiley80 - Almost all anarchists, including individualist anarchists, support some form of direct democracy. Collectivist anarchism is distinguished from other forms only by its economic content. Collectivists advocate a combination of social ownership of the means of production with remuneration for hours worked, as opposed to market-based wages or totally free consumption. So because collectivists don't have a separate position on political decision-making, I think it's better to have just one link to the main anarchism article. -Father Inire 03:51, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)